1. Approved-Chancellor Search Committee Recommendations and Report –(Cont’d.)strong credentials and interviewed well, both the advisory and the Regents’ committees selected Mr. Jim Rogers as the choice for Chancellor. Regent Whipple requested Board action on the following Committee recommendations:Ø Minutes – The committees recommended approval of the minutes from the January 20, 2005 meeting.Ø Selection of Semi-Finalists – The committees discussed the seven candidates and selected two semi-finalists for the position of Chancellor.Ø The committees interviewed both finalists for the position of Chancellor.Ø Selection of Finalist/Recommendations - The Institutional Advisory Committee discussed the two candidates for the position of UCCSN Chancellor and advised the Regents’ Committee with respect to the two finalists.The Regents' Committee considered and discussed the two candidates for the UCCSN Chancellor as well s the Advisory Committee's recommendation. They selected Mr. James E. Rogers to be recommended to the Board of Regents for consideration as appointment to the position of Chancellor.Regent Whipple thanked the search committee for a job well done. He also thanked Mr. Rogers for providing an excellent interview.Regent Alden moved approval of the Committee recommendations and acceptance of the report. Regent Dondero seconded.Regent Sisolak commended Regent Whipple and System staff for doing a fine job with the search.Motion carried. Regents Hill, Howard, and Schofield were absent.2. Approved-UCCSN Chancellor Recommendation - The Chancellor Search Committee considered and interviewed candidates Dr. Robert L. King and Mr. James E. Rogers for the position and presented their recommendation for the UCCSN Chancellor to the full Board of Regents for their consideration and action. Proposed terms and conditions of the contract were presented at the meeting.Chair Anthony reviewed the proposed Employment Agreement for Mr. Rogers. He noted that the Employment Agreement stipulated that Chancellor Rogers would have the authority to raise money for other educational and charitable organizations with which he is currently involved (Section 2.3). Chair Anthony stated there was no conflict of interest with Chancellor Rogers raising funds for other organizations while also raising funds for the System.Chair Anthony related that Chancellor Rogers had waived the use of a host account and all perquisites, including housing and automobile allowances (Section 4.3).

2. Approved-UCCSN Chancellor Recommendation – (Cont’d.)Regent Whipple moved approval of the appointment of Mr. James E. Rogers as UCCSN Chancellor with the contractual terms and conditions as presented. Regent Leavitt seconded.Regent Dondero questioned the stipulation in Section 4.1, “The Chancellor shall not earn annual leave.” Interim Chancellor Rogers replied that it was a policy addressing the accumulation of annual leave, adding that it would not prevent him from taking a vacation day. Regent Dondero asked whether he would receive the same conditions as other chancellors.Assistant Chief Counsel Nielsen explained that the Chancellor would not be subject to the accumulation/earning of annual leave. When the Chancellor is absent, he is required to report absences to the Board Chair. He is allowed to take reasonable personal time that will be reported to the Board Chair. She related that the contract provided a different way for the Chancellor to do other things, including taking vacations.Regent Sisolak questioned Sections 3.2 and 3.3. He asked whether the contract was a 30-day, at-will on both sides. Interim Chancellor Rogers replied that condition had been included in the first agreement, adding that he was not troubled by it. Regent Sisolak said he was more concerned about the notice that the Board would be provided. Interim Chancellor Rogers said he would not object to the Board providing 30-days notice with himself providing 3-years notice. Regent Sisolak said he would prefer a little more certainty. Everyone else present was comfortable with the 30-day notice requirement.Regent Leavitt assumed that Chancellor Rogers would notify the Board as soon as he knew that he had no intention of renewing the 3-year contract in order to provide the Board as much notice as possible. Interim Chancellor Rogers replied he would do what ever made the Board feel comfortable. He said he would provide more than just 30-days notice.Regent Sisolak observed that Mr. Rogers would not receive tenure at any of the institutions.Regent Alden felt that 30-days was rather short notice and felt that 90-days would be better. He felt the Chancellor should be given tenure, and possibly at the law school, noting that the Chancellor was not requesting much and that all he wanted to do was serve the State of Nevada. He found that refreshing and thanked Mr. Rogers.Regent Rosenberg questioned Section 4.3. He was troubled that the Chancellor was waiving a host account. He observed that Mr. Rogers would be working for the System and would be encountering a tremendous loss of income. He felt that Mr. Rogers was entitled to be reimbursed for his efforts for the System. Interim Chancellor Rogers replied that it was a no-win situation. He did not want any criticism or questions. He did not want the newspapers reporting that he was hosting Regents when meeting them for lunch. He said that he insists on paying for meals when dining with individuals who may

2. Approved-UCCSN Chancellor Recommendation – (Cont’d.)become a customer of the System. Interim Chancellor Rogers related that he would not use a host account.Motion carried. Regents Hill, Howard, and Schofield were absent. Chair Anthony reported that Chancellor Rogers was the ninth chancellor appointed for the System.3. Approved-Resolution #05-07, Proclamation Honoring Nevada’s Foster Care Parents – The Board approved a resolution consisting of a proclamation honoring Nevada’s foster care parents (Ref. A on file in the Board office).Regent Sisolak moved approval of Resolution #05-07, honoring Nevada’s foster care parents. Regent Rosenberg seconded.Regent Dondero requested that the resolution be shared with all of the institutions in the state.Regent Leavitt left the meeting.Motion carried. Regents Hill, Howard, Leavitt, and Schofield were absent.4. Information Only-Legislative Update – Chancellor Rogers led a discussion updating progress in the legislative session to date. The update included a report on the progress to date on the System budget and a report on legislation which may impact the Board.Chancellor Rogers reported that activity in the Legislature the previous day had not gone exactly as they had anticipated. He felt the legislative team had done an outstanding job. They know where it will end up and feel that they will be comfortable with the end result. He said it was in a constant state of change at this point. He had not seen anything substantially different from what was anticipated. He said they spent a lot of time with all of the legislators and the Governor. He did not believe that the bill that would dictate which courses the System should offer would pass.Regent Rosenberg asked whether the session would run into overtime. Chancellor Rogers replied that it could not.Regent Leavitt entered the meeting.Assistant Chancellor Larson reported that the System name change had passed out of both committees. She said there had been quite a meeting of the minds. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani’s bill was heard in the Senate that day, which proposes many changes for the System. She proposed a number of amendments. These changes pleased the UCCSN

4. Information Only-Legislative Update – (Cont’d.)legislative team. The team proposed more changes, which were received favorably by the Senate. The legislative team is attempting to eliminate a section addressing dual credits. She felt the end result would ultimately have no impact on the System. She said they were pleased with that day’s action, adding that they were in conversations with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani about additional bills that she has proposed.Regent Leavitt asked whether the new changes addressed the issue of 6-year vs. 4-year terms. Assistant Chancellor Larson replied it did not. She reported that Vice Chancellor Klaich had requested that provision be removed. The Senate committee did not vote on this bill that day. Significant amendments were made regarding transferability, reflecting current System practices. The entire section dictating to four-year and two-year institutions had been removed. The Public Works section was also removed. There was a discussion about term lengths, but no vote.5. Public Comment – None.6. New Business – None.The meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m.Suzanne ErnstChief Administrative Officer to the Board